> On 27 Nov., 19:52, Carsten Schultz <schu...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:> > Surely set theory must be to blame for this!> > We have infinitely many digits left to the point in the limit when> calculated by analysis.

The number of digits between the radix point and the first non-zero digit to its left increases without limit, and thus has infinity as its limit, and this works the same however one calculates it,> > We have no digits left to the point in the limit when calculated by> set theory.

WM may not, but we do, but their are in the limit infinitely many of them being zero before any other kind can occur.> > This seems to suggest that set theory is not suitable (or willing in> this special case) to calculate the limit, or analysis is wrong.

Only to those like WM who live their lives in Wolkenmuekenheim rather than in any real world

> I> would stick with analysis. Of course there is no contradiction because> we know in set theory> Ther¹s no con-> tra-dic-tion!> Ther¹s no con-> tra-dic-tion!> Ther¹s no con-> tra-dic-tion!> (to be shouted to the tune of Orwell's sheep).

What goes on in WM's Wolkenmuekenheim may be up to him, but what is outside his Wolkenmuekenheim WM cannot control.--